Well for those of you with memories that span longer than 10 years, we DID invade Iraq for not only HAVING WMDs, but actually USING them on their neighbors as well, which resulted in 10s of thousands dead.

But that was 1991, not 2003. Oh, and everyone was cool with us when we did it in '91, but not '03 after Iraq had already violated over a dozen UN treaties and sanctions, and were actively seeking chemical WMDs.

I don't think he's right, although arguably according to the way he worded his claim he is also incapable of being wrong. He was just being a typical academic, trying to be too cute by half. If you define the end of history as the pinnacle of political (not cultural, nor technological) evolution because no progression is possible beyond that point, and then stipulate that any change for the worse represents regression rather than evolution and is therefore not the continuation or resumption of history... well, that leaves very little to argue over except whether or not liberal democracy is really the farthest point we are capable of reaching. It mangles the definition of the word "history" beyond the point of recognition.

Human history is fraught with examples of societies taking huge leaps backwards or sliding into complete ruin altogether through sheer decadence, returning all the way to barbarism. Of course, Fukuyama acknowledges that such set backs can happen but insists that these are just "events" and not part of "history" as he defines it and waves it away as all being just temporary, even though by his definition temporary can mean centuries.

I really think he was just caught up in the triumphialism of the time and attempted to be provocative by playing word games. I have to admit, it is a hell of a book title. He certainly captured the zeitgeist with that one. But rereading it now it already seems hilariously dated.

It has been shown that intellegent people are more prone to cognitive bias then less intellgent people.

"History" is not going to end, of course, but European-style social democracy does seem to be the terminal point of political evolution, where basic needs are guaranteed by society but economic freedoms are sufficient to allow for a robust private sector and freedoms of thought are likewise guaranteed.

The changing economics due to the march of technology would largely prevent a backslide to barbarism, short of total nuclear war destroying all of our systems, and we can observe in modernity that countries that achieve democracy rarely stray too far away from some form of democratic rule (which can be observed in many of the anti-communist juntas in South America or Greece, where democracy was restored not because the juntas did anything wrong, but because the people now expected to have it and would not accept otherwise).

I have to look in more to Fukuyama's specific thought, though. His was a name that was thrown around a lot in my major in college, but we were never taught much of it beyond the boiled-down version.

The Arab Spring being a largely home-grown, spontaneous event does demonstrate that the Middle East is nearing democratic maturity, but the problem in uneven urbanization and social development (where the urbanites are ready for democracy but the rural majority just wants sharia theocracy) is what upsets it in the near time.

But the problem is that at this point the state shows a tendency to keep evolving at the expense of everyone else. Never mind the increasingly precarious state of civil liberties in the modern national security state. Just purely economically it's not exactly sustainable to have the public sector meeting or even far exceeding the private as a measure of GDP, and a lot of wheels seem to be coming off a lot of wagons lately. So looking back over the relative few decades of the European social democracy's existence (fewer decades still at the time Fukuyama wrote his book) and declaring, "Yeah, guys... this is it," seems hilariously short sighted. Especially when you take such a long view as he otherwise does to consider centuries of regression and stagnation to be merely some kind of temporary departure from the natural course of evolution.

That was the public justification for it. So officially you did. Though Tony Blair is trying his best to retrospectively provide a palatable non-WMD based justification.

The better question is what is Russia going to do about it? They've been fairly strong supporters of the Assad regime up until now. Are they going to now ally with the USA and the rest of Eurpoe in seeking the removal of Assad and his croies from office?

And China also needs to take a strong stand on this.

Without Russia and China being willing to materially contribute the USA has too much war fatigue and resource comitment to Afghanistan and Iraqm  to actually effect proper military action in Syria.

Just glancing at the first page of this thread, I saw at least 4 different opinions on the true cause of the Iraq war. Everyone is firm in their own belief and is convinced that others are being misled for not seeing the situation as it really is... or was.

I don't even know which ones are the conspiracy theories, much less which one is the truth. And to be honest, I don't much care. That administration is gone and regardless of why it happened, the war was shit.

I'll just put it here...

“The world has changed after 9/11”… this is a common place. So what have actually changed in the world after these ten years aside from metal detectors and other means of airport security? On the one hand, obviously everything. On the other, almost nothing. 

On the day when Americans marked sad anniversary of 9/11, fighters of Al-Qaeda, trained and armed by the US, have been celebrating their victory on the streets of Tripoli over Lybian regime, which recently was the US ally in fighting terrorism. Ten years after 9/11 Al-Qaeda and other groups of islamists are conisdered an acceptable tool for ruling out the US local tasks not only in Lybia or Syria. Today it is considered acceptable to threaten various countries from Central Asia to Russia and China with Arab spring scenario. Just at the right time, at 10th year anniversary, the world has learned about the deaths of mythical leaders of world terrorism, Osama bin Laden and mullah Omar. Traces of their bodies have vanished into thin air. Two memorial pools have been opened on the place of WTC. It’s either the pools of tears, or “dump the bodies into the water” to cover all things up. 

Similar to the whole story around 9/11, it’s not important after all who and how blew those towers up. What is important here is it was just in the right time, satisfying existing demand in the US, when they just started to going down into the current crisis. The geography of the US wars with world terrorism surpisingly matched geopolitics of oil – the task of controlling main source of hydrocarbonates and the ways of its transportation. As the result practically all oil and gas extraction of the Gulf, aside from Iran, were under occupation. At the same time “world on terror” allowed almost uncontrollably to ramp up budget fundings, openning possibilities for dollar emission and creating bigger national debt. 

Mindless euphoria of the only superpower. You don’t have to take into consideration not only enemies, but even allies. You don’t need anyone. Because you could print money as much as you want. Free money – the thing is more dangerous than any military advantage. What’s the difference between Bush and Obama administrations? Obama adminstration could not afford to print money all they want anymore. It prints them anyway, but it understands that they are going to pay for it. Obama’s America has been terrified by crisis and feels its vulerability. It is feeling the limits of its power. Nevertheless it has to support its dominance. 

Wars of Bush, so called “war on terror”, are basically “wars of order”. In other words, the task is to establish new world order (you remember? “new Middle East” coined by Condoleezza Rice). They had the euphoria and confidence that they could support that order. 

Wars of Obama are wars “in defence of revolting people, against the violence of the regime”. These are “wars of chaos”, in which terrorists are viable allies. There’re no power to support an order anymore. Nevertheless there’s still a power to create and control chaos. Wars of Obama are wars of controlable chaos.

Here’s the tendency, irreversible tendency: order > controlable chaos > uncontrolable chaos. Since the current crisis often credited as systemic crisis, in other words it is irreversible crisis. The power to control the chaos will run out sooner or later, which is the suggested resolution of systemic crisis. The end of one system and the birth of another. In chaos. Very unpleasant spectacle. 

the Iraq war was a lie, it was an excuse to dispose of a former ally. And unfortunately, for us you had to drag every ally to play their part against their wishes. It was also convenient for big oil to go in and rob Iraqis of their own resources.

I would like to think western governments have learnt their lesson about starting a war with no reason to do so. It was only 10 years for gods sake! Yes, Assad is a tyranny but it's also nothing to do with us. Just let them fight among themselves. Getting involved only means more get killed as war would last even longer.

Also, democracy is a pretty shitty reason to declare war on someone. America don't respect the principle anyway, otherwise their would of never been coups in places like Venezuela (failed), Chile (success) and Iran (success) which were or are democracies at some point. If America goes to Syria, it's all about power and control, they don't care who replaces Assad.

a) The Democrats are in charge, not the warmongers Republicans
b) DIck Cheney is not around. He instigated the entire Iraq war in order to secure a multi billion contract for Haliburton...like he did wiuth the first Gulf War. (This is not a conspiracy theory but actual fact. God knows why it is not more publicly talked about)

So yes, it is pretty much down to the President being sane and the VP having a soul.